Trump 2016 Or Hillary?
- Thread starter WhiteGuyintoThis
- Start date
who is doing the end run?... you naturally are twisting the fact he never stopped his golfing during any of it... he didn't care how many lives were lost... that is the facts no matter how you want to white wash it!
I have a sign near my door bell, it has the picture of a large bore handgun and underneath it says "I don't call 911"
he didn't stop... he just paused to get the news and went right back with his vacation!
And the Democrats are still crying "It's all Reagan's fault".
Not true
http://www.snopes.com/ronald-reagan-golfing-1983-beirut-attack/ Here check it out for yourself. There is a good deal wrong with both parties but to talk about things that just aren't true doesn't help anyone
No kidding.....pretty soon they will be bitching about what Thomas Jefferson did as president.
you are changing your story there... first you said he was there and din't leave.. finished his vacation... now you want to change that... come on now stick with just one version of events will you
My bad. But it wouldn't make much difference if you did watch MSNBC. CBS and the rest of the liberal media are all the same anyway. One distorted twisted view.
There’s more “Clinton Cash” trouble for Hillary.
A report out Monday, “From Russia With Money — Hillary Clinton, the Russian Reset and Cronyism,” raises serious questions about the cash connections between the Clintons and participants in the State Department’s failed five-year effort to improve, or “reset,” US-Russia relations during Hillary’s reign as secretary of state.
Key players in a main component of the reset — a Moscow-based Silicon Valley-styled campus for developing biomed, space, nuclear and IT technologies called “Skolkovo” — poured tens of millions of dollars into the Clinton Foundation, the report by journalist Peter Schweizer alleges.
As the Obama administration’s top diplomat, Hillary Clinton was at the center of US efforts on the reset in general and Skolkovo in particular, Schweizer argues.
Yet, “Of the 28 US, European and Russian companies that participated in Skolkovo, 17 of them were Clinton Foundation donors” or sponsored speeches by former President Bill Clinton, Schweizer told The Post.
“It raises the question — do you need to pay money to sit at the table?”
In one example cited by Schweizer, Skolkovo Foundation member and then-Cisco CEO John Chambers donated between $1 million and $5 million in personal and corporate cash to the Clinton Foundation, the report says.
WikiLeaks mum on source of damaging DNC emails, says real issue is proof Sanders 'sabotaged'
The July 22 release showed DNC staffers appeared to undermine the campaign of Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, which ****** group Chairwoman Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a supporter of then-party front-runner Hillary Clinton, to resign
In September 2007, former Clinton Administration senior health policy advisor Paul Starr published an article, "The Hillarycare Mythology,"[35] and he wrote that Bill, not Hillary, Clinton, was the driving ******* behind the plan at all stages of its origination and development; the task ******* headed by her quickly became useless and was not the primary ******* behind formulating the proposed policy; and "[n]ot only did the fiction of Hillary's personal responsibility for the health plan fail to protect the president at the time, it has also now come back to haunt her in her own quest for the presidency.
The Clintons’ “systematically abuse women and others – sexually, physically, and psychologically – in their scramble for power and wealth,” says [“The Clintons’ War On Women”] press release.
Hillary Clinton’s core agenda is a quest for power, even while she presents herself as champion of women’s issues, [Roger]Stone says.
“If Hillary intends to build her campaign around an appeal to women, her campaign is built on quicksand,” said Stone. But “Hillary is a life-time abuser of women and her advocacy on women issues rings hollow,” he said.
A report out Monday, “From Russia With Money — Hillary Clinton, the Russian Reset and Cronyism,” raises serious questions about the cash connections between the Clintons and participants in the State Department’s failed five-year effort to improve, or “reset,” US-Russia relations during Hillary’s reign as secretary of state.
Key players in a main component of the reset — a Moscow-based Silicon Valley-styled campus for developing biomed, space, nuclear and IT technologies called “Skolkovo” — poured tens of millions of dollars into the Clinton Foundation, the report by journalist Peter Schweizer alleges.
As the Obama administration’s top diplomat, Hillary Clinton was at the center of US efforts on the reset in general and Skolkovo in particular, Schweizer argues.
Yet, “Of the 28 US, European and Russian companies that participated in Skolkovo, 17 of them were Clinton Foundation donors” or sponsored speeches by former President Bill Clinton, Schweizer told The Post.
“It raises the question — do you need to pay money to sit at the table?”
In one example cited by Schweizer, Skolkovo Foundation member and then-Cisco CEO John Chambers donated between $1 million and $5 million in personal and corporate cash to the Clinton Foundation, the report says.
WikiLeaks mum on source of damaging DNC emails, says real issue is proof Sanders 'sabotaged'
The July 22 release showed DNC staffers appeared to undermine the campaign of Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, which ****** group Chairwoman Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a supporter of then-party front-runner Hillary Clinton, to resign
In September 2007, former Clinton Administration senior health policy advisor Paul Starr published an article, "The Hillarycare Mythology,"[35] and he wrote that Bill, not Hillary, Clinton, was the driving ******* behind the plan at all stages of its origination and development; the task ******* headed by her quickly became useless and was not the primary ******* behind formulating the proposed policy; and "[n]ot only did the fiction of Hillary's personal responsibility for the health plan fail to protect the president at the time, it has also now come back to haunt her in her own quest for the presidency.
The Clintons’ “systematically abuse women and others – sexually, physically, and psychologically – in their scramble for power and wealth,” says [“The Clintons’ War On Women”] press release.
Hillary Clinton’s core agenda is a quest for power, even while she presents herself as champion of women’s issues, [Roger]Stone says.
“If Hillary intends to build her campaign around an appeal to women, her campaign is built on quicksand,” said Stone. But “Hillary is a life-time abuser of women and her advocacy on women issues rings hollow,” he said.
Reagan's Veto Kills Fairness Doctrine Bill
June 21, 1987|PENNY PAGANO | Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON — President Reagan, intensifying the debate over whether the nation's broadcasters must present opposing views of controversial issues, has vetoed legislation to turn into law the 38-year-old "fairness doctrine," the White House announced Saturday.
The doctrine, instituted by the Federal Communications Commission as public policy in 1949, requires the nation's radio and television stations to "afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance."
"This type of content-based regulation by the federal government is, in my judgment, antagonistic to the freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment," Reagan said in his veto message. "In any other medium besides broadcasting, such federal policing of the editorial judgment of journalists would be unthinkable."
Staunch Opposition
The legislation had been staunchly opposed not only by the Administration, but also by the nation's broadcasters, who maintain that the FCC policy is an unconstitutional intrusion that has a chilling effect on their operations.
The fairness doctrine issue is far more complicated than purported here....Probably too complex to grasp for someone who gets their information from internet memes.
First off, the repeal of the doctrine happened during Reagan's administration, but was performed by the bipartisan FCC commissioners. At the time there were four sitting commissioners....two were democrats and two were republicans. The vote to repeal the fairness doctrine was unanimous: 4-0.
There have been attempts by congress to change the law and reinstate the doctrine. Early ones were opposed by Reagan and GHW Bush. However your hero Obummer also has stated his opposition to reinstating the fairness doctrine:
In June 2008, Barack Obama's press secretary wrote that Obama (then a Democratic U.S. Senator from Illinois and candidate for President):
“ Does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters ... [and] considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible. That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets.
In February 2009, a White House spokesperson said that President Obama continues to oppose the revival of the Doctrine.[49]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
The whole thing is rather mute in this day and age. It only regulated over the air broadcast content. In modern times, most people get their political news from places unregulated by the fairness doctrine like cable networks such as CNN, MSNBC, or Fox News....or internet memes....or interracial porn sites.
Anyone see Hillarys latest remarks about Seth Rich's killing. He was the DNC staffer scheduled to testify.
Anyway Hillary said in the washington post that surely weapons of war dont belong on our streets.....seems she was refering to the gun that killed rich being an assault weapon? Only problem is as far as i can find the police.never released the caliber of weapon that killed him.....hmmm that seems kind of suspicious. Anyone see any articles stating what caliber of bullet killed him.If thats not what she meant then she meant guns in general should not be on the street.
It was supposedly a robbery gone bad but nothing was taken from him
Anyway Hillary said in the washington post that surely weapons of war dont belong on our streets.....seems she was refering to the gun that killed rich being an assault weapon? Only problem is as far as i can find the police.never released the caliber of weapon that killed him.....hmmm that seems kind of suspicious. Anyone see any articles stating what caliber of bullet killed him.If thats not what she meant then she meant guns in general should not be on the street.
It was supposedly a robbery gone bad but nothing was taken from him
Conservative’ anti-Trumpers still don’t get it
I am amused by the NeverTrump conservatives who’ll support Hillary, or at least do what they can to ensure her election, because they say Trump isn’t a real conservative. They’re a little like the people who go on a KFC diet in order to lose weight, but at least they’re asking the right question, even if they’ve come up with the wrong answer.
So just what makes someone a conservative? I might have thought that nationalism had something to do with it, and certainly conservatives of the past would have found it odd to object to a preference for native Americans over non-Americans. The Open Borders crowd might be good libertarians, but there’s nothing especially conservative about their beliefs.
Then there’s the idea that, in crafting policies, we should be looking at how they’ll affect Americans across different groups, rather than at growth in the abstract. Trump has championed the left-behind people, the low- or middle-class Americans who have seen their wages stagnate or their jobs disappear.
We’re all in favor of per-capita GDP increases, but if they’re only going to the people at the top, that has to be a concern — at least to any party that hopes to win an election. Nothing un-conservative about that.
Ah, says the NeverTrumper, you’ve misunderstood me. I like Americans, but Trump doesn’t want to touch Medicare, he’s said nothing about entitlement reform and I suspect he might even be prepared to support a national health scheme. We ideologues have 57 different little right-wing boxes, and while Ted Cruz had ticked off every single one of them, Trump has simply ignored them. And us.
There’s something to that, I admit, but the objection reveals the right-wing ideologue’s intellectual poverty. What he’s not grasped is what makes economies free, and how we’ve declined on freedom rankings.
Take a look at what’s happened to us on the measures of economic freedom, as given by the eminently conservative Heritage Foundation and the very libertarian Cato Institute. We’ve been falling like a rock, and have been overtaken by many other First World nations — all of which have socialized medicine.
The perfect Republican idiot draws lines in the sand over entitlement reform, while ignoring the deeper rot in our economy.
The wholly unelectable Ted Cruz might have demonstrated a perfect fidelity to a plethora of right-wing principles, but the proper question is why we’ve declined on freedom rankings as compared to other countries. It’s obviously not health care.
We must be comparativists, then, and follow Samuel Johnson’s advice, in “London”:
“Let Observation with extensive View / Survey Mankind, from China to Peru.”
And doing so, we’ll find that what distinguishes us from the Denmarks and Canadas — from the country that older Americans were born in — is a deeper kind of rot, of departures from the rule of law, of corruption, of a regulatory state on steroids, of broken educational institutions, of a demented immigration system and of a constitutional structure that lacks a reverse gear and that has given us wasteful laws that seem impossible to repeal.
We’ve become economically immobile, relative to other countries, and it’s not because of the move to an information economy. They’re not living in the Stone Age in Denmark.
You want to fiddle with entitlement reform? Raise the retirement age to 67, perhaps? Splendid stuff, but have you realized that we spend more per capita on welfare than almost every other country in the world, and that whatever you do, that’s not about to change?
Understand all this, and you understand Trump’s appeal, and the deep conservatism of his supporters. If they’re dismissive of the ideologue’s petty little reforms, it’s because they’re more, not less, conservative than he. When we have strayed so far from the Idea of America, of liberty and opportunity for our children, then true conservatism requires a radical return to first principles.
At some level, the NeverTrumpers begin to understand this, for they’ve begun to say that things are not so bad after all. For years they’ve complained about a country in decline, but now they tell us, I’m all right, Jack!
If you’re psyching yourself up to vote for Clinton Cash, I guess that’s what you have to say, but it’s a sad reversal. The mild young NeverTrumper boasts of his integrity, and asks to be respected by progressives, who know a white flag when they see one.
Say he’s prudent, say he’s well-behaved, but don’t tell me that he’s conservative.
I am amused by the NeverTrump conservatives who’ll support Hillary, or at least do what they can to ensure her election, because they say Trump isn’t a real conservative. They’re a little like the people who go on a KFC diet in order to lose weight, but at least they’re asking the right question, even if they’ve come up with the wrong answer.
So just what makes someone a conservative? I might have thought that nationalism had something to do with it, and certainly conservatives of the past would have found it odd to object to a preference for native Americans over non-Americans. The Open Borders crowd might be good libertarians, but there’s nothing especially conservative about their beliefs.
Then there’s the idea that, in crafting policies, we should be looking at how they’ll affect Americans across different groups, rather than at growth in the abstract. Trump has championed the left-behind people, the low- or middle-class Americans who have seen their wages stagnate or their jobs disappear.
We’re all in favor of per-capita GDP increases, but if they’re only going to the people at the top, that has to be a concern — at least to any party that hopes to win an election. Nothing un-conservative about that.
Ah, says the NeverTrumper, you’ve misunderstood me. I like Americans, but Trump doesn’t want to touch Medicare, he’s said nothing about entitlement reform and I suspect he might even be prepared to support a national health scheme. We ideologues have 57 different little right-wing boxes, and while Ted Cruz had ticked off every single one of them, Trump has simply ignored them. And us.
There’s something to that, I admit, but the objection reveals the right-wing ideologue’s intellectual poverty. What he’s not grasped is what makes economies free, and how we’ve declined on freedom rankings.
Take a look at what’s happened to us on the measures of economic freedom, as given by the eminently conservative Heritage Foundation and the very libertarian Cato Institute. We’ve been falling like a rock, and have been overtaken by many other First World nations — all of which have socialized medicine.
The perfect Republican idiot draws lines in the sand over entitlement reform, while ignoring the deeper rot in our economy.
The wholly unelectable Ted Cruz might have demonstrated a perfect fidelity to a plethora of right-wing principles, but the proper question is why we’ve declined on freedom rankings as compared to other countries. It’s obviously not health care.
We must be comparativists, then, and follow Samuel Johnson’s advice, in “London”:
“Let Observation with extensive View / Survey Mankind, from China to Peru.”
And doing so, we’ll find that what distinguishes us from the Denmarks and Canadas — from the country that older Americans were born in — is a deeper kind of rot, of departures from the rule of law, of corruption, of a regulatory state on steroids, of broken educational institutions, of a demented immigration system and of a constitutional structure that lacks a reverse gear and that has given us wasteful laws that seem impossible to repeal.
We’ve become economically immobile, relative to other countries, and it’s not because of the move to an information economy. They’re not living in the Stone Age in Denmark.
You want to fiddle with entitlement reform? Raise the retirement age to 67, perhaps? Splendid stuff, but have you realized that we spend more per capita on welfare than almost every other country in the world, and that whatever you do, that’s not about to change?
Understand all this, and you understand Trump’s appeal, and the deep conservatism of his supporters. If they’re dismissive of the ideologue’s petty little reforms, it’s because they’re more, not less, conservative than he. When we have strayed so far from the Idea of America, of liberty and opportunity for our children, then true conservatism requires a radical return to first principles.
At some level, the NeverTrumpers begin to understand this, for they’ve begun to say that things are not so bad after all. For years they’ve complained about a country in decline, but now they tell us, I’m all right, Jack!
If you’re psyching yourself up to vote for Clinton Cash, I guess that’s what you have to say, but it’s a sad reversal. The mild young NeverTrumper boasts of his integrity, and asks to be respected by progressives, who know a white flag when they see one.
Say he’s prudent, say he’s well-behaved, but don’t tell me that he’s conservative.
Trump Melts Down Spectacularly in ABC Interview
If Donald Trump’s weekend was already a train wreck, the derailed cars burst spectacularly into flame on Sunday morning with the release of a taped interview the Republican presidential nominee gave to ABC’s George Stephanopoulos. Trump appeared to be unaware that Russian troops are fighting in Ukraine, and have been for some time. He also suggested that Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula, which Russia invaded and declared Russian territory in 2014, be ceded to the Kremlin.
In a discussion about US policy toward Ukraine, Stephanopoulos asked Trump about his campaign operatives’ successful effort to block the addition of a plank to the GOP platform that would have advocated providing lethal weapons to Ukraine to help defend against the Russian-backed insurgency in its eastern Donbas region.
Trump said, “I was not involved” no fewer than five times in trying to avoid the issue, which put him in direct opposition to the majority of the Republican foreign policy establishment.
It wasn’t even clear that Trump knew what the change entailed until Stephanopoulos spelled it out for him and asked why he thought it was a good idea.
Trump again dodged, appearing to claim that there was no need for the weapons by arguing that Russian President Vladimir Putin wasn’t going to take action against Ukraine.
“He's not going into Ukraine, OK? Just so you understand. He's not going to go into Ukraine, all right? You can mark it down and you can put it down, you can take it anywhere you want.”
“Well, he's already there, isn't he?” asked Stephanopoulos.
“OK, well, he's there in a certain way, but I'm not there yet,” Trump said, rapidly trying to shift the conversation to the subject of President Obama. “You have Obama there. And frankly, that whole part of the world is a mess under Obama, with all the strength that you're talking about and all of the power of NATO and all of this, in the meantime, he's going where -- he takes -- takes Crimea, he's sort of -- I mean…”
It was a place Trump should not have gone, because Stephanopoulos then asked about a recent suggestion that he would recognize the Crimea as Russian territory and eliminate sanctions imposed after Russia’s invasion of the Ukrainian territory.
“I'm going to take a look at it,” he said. “But, you know, the people of Crimea, from what I've heard, would rather be with Russia than where they were.”
The idea of simply allowing Russia to take part of another country’s territory by ******* with no consequences is anathema to most if not all of the United States’ European allies, who have come to consider the US a major bulwark against Russian aggression on its Western borders.
In a part of the interview that was released Saturday, Trump also attacked the family of Pakistani-American US Army Capt. Humayun Khan, who died in 2004 while protecting his troops in Iraq. Khan’s *******, Khizr Khan, delivered a blistering takedown of Trump during the Democratic National Convention last week, challenging Trump’s knowledge of the Constitution and questioning his right to impugn the patriotism of others when “You have sacrificed nothing. And no one.”
Asked to address Khan’s criticism, Trump began by insinuating that his wife, Ghazala Khan, had been silent during her husband’s speech because she wasn’t “allowed” to speak -- relying on his go-to assertion that “a lot of people have said that” make what looked very much like an attack on the Khan’s Islamic faith a part of the public record.
“I saw him. He was, you know, very emotional. And probably looked like -- a nice guy to me. His wife, if you look at his wife, she was standing there. She had nothing to say. She probably -- maybe she wasn't allowed to have anything to say. You tell me, but plenty of people have written that. She was extremely quiet and looked like she had nothing to say. A lot of people have said that.”
Trump went on to say that he has “made a lot of sacrifices. I've worked very, very hard. I've created thousands and thousands of jobs, tens of thousands of jobs, built great structures. I've done -- I've had tremendous success.”
“Those are sacrifices?” Stephanopoulos asked.
“Oh, sure. I think they're sacrifices," he said, before going on to list things, like hiring people with employee benefits and raising money for charity, that don’t qualify as sacrifices in any context, much less when comparing them to a family who lost a ******* in the nation’s service.
The Trump campaign issued a furious denial Saturday night, claiming that he had not attacked the Khan family or compared his “sacrifices” to theirs. But the transcript doesn’t lie.
If Donald Trump’s weekend was already a train wreck, the derailed cars burst spectacularly into flame on Sunday morning with the release of a taped interview the Republican presidential nominee gave to ABC’s George Stephanopoulos. Trump appeared to be unaware that Russian troops are fighting in Ukraine, and have been for some time. He also suggested that Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula, which Russia invaded and declared Russian territory in 2014, be ceded to the Kremlin.
In a discussion about US policy toward Ukraine, Stephanopoulos asked Trump about his campaign operatives’ successful effort to block the addition of a plank to the GOP platform that would have advocated providing lethal weapons to Ukraine to help defend against the Russian-backed insurgency in its eastern Donbas region.
Trump said, “I was not involved” no fewer than five times in trying to avoid the issue, which put him in direct opposition to the majority of the Republican foreign policy establishment.
It wasn’t even clear that Trump knew what the change entailed until Stephanopoulos spelled it out for him and asked why he thought it was a good idea.
Trump again dodged, appearing to claim that there was no need for the weapons by arguing that Russian President Vladimir Putin wasn’t going to take action against Ukraine.
“He's not going into Ukraine, OK? Just so you understand. He's not going to go into Ukraine, all right? You can mark it down and you can put it down, you can take it anywhere you want.”
“Well, he's already there, isn't he?” asked Stephanopoulos.
“OK, well, he's there in a certain way, but I'm not there yet,” Trump said, rapidly trying to shift the conversation to the subject of President Obama. “You have Obama there. And frankly, that whole part of the world is a mess under Obama, with all the strength that you're talking about and all of the power of NATO and all of this, in the meantime, he's going where -- he takes -- takes Crimea, he's sort of -- I mean…”
It was a place Trump should not have gone, because Stephanopoulos then asked about a recent suggestion that he would recognize the Crimea as Russian territory and eliminate sanctions imposed after Russia’s invasion of the Ukrainian territory.
“I'm going to take a look at it,” he said. “But, you know, the people of Crimea, from what I've heard, would rather be with Russia than where they were.”
The idea of simply allowing Russia to take part of another country’s territory by ******* with no consequences is anathema to most if not all of the United States’ European allies, who have come to consider the US a major bulwark against Russian aggression on its Western borders.
In a part of the interview that was released Saturday, Trump also attacked the family of Pakistani-American US Army Capt. Humayun Khan, who died in 2004 while protecting his troops in Iraq. Khan’s *******, Khizr Khan, delivered a blistering takedown of Trump during the Democratic National Convention last week, challenging Trump’s knowledge of the Constitution and questioning his right to impugn the patriotism of others when “You have sacrificed nothing. And no one.”
Asked to address Khan’s criticism, Trump began by insinuating that his wife, Ghazala Khan, had been silent during her husband’s speech because she wasn’t “allowed” to speak -- relying on his go-to assertion that “a lot of people have said that” make what looked very much like an attack on the Khan’s Islamic faith a part of the public record.
“I saw him. He was, you know, very emotional. And probably looked like -- a nice guy to me. His wife, if you look at his wife, she was standing there. She had nothing to say. She probably -- maybe she wasn't allowed to have anything to say. You tell me, but plenty of people have written that. She was extremely quiet and looked like she had nothing to say. A lot of people have said that.”
Trump went on to say that he has “made a lot of sacrifices. I've worked very, very hard. I've created thousands and thousands of jobs, tens of thousands of jobs, built great structures. I've done -- I've had tremendous success.”
“Those are sacrifices?” Stephanopoulos asked.
“Oh, sure. I think they're sacrifices," he said, before going on to list things, like hiring people with employee benefits and raising money for charity, that don’t qualify as sacrifices in any context, much less when comparing them to a family who lost a ******* in the nation’s service.
The Trump campaign issued a furious denial Saturday night, claiming that he had not attacked the Khan family or compared his “sacrifices” to theirs. But the transcript doesn’t lie.
Ok...from some more digging into this it looks like he was not scheduled to testify on any dnc voter fraud or email scandals....lesson learned again....hard to trust anything that is posted as news.
Still weird she would say weapons of war....would wonder what she meant. If she meant guns in general on our streets then it proves her stance on guns in general and not just assault weapons.
